29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

The Telecom Digest for August 15, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 204 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(John F. Morse)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(John F. Morse)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(Paul)
Re: Extensions to pay phones?(Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Verizon strike(Lisa or Jeff)
Re: Verizon strike(GlowingBlueMist)
Re: Verizon strike(Steve Stone)
Re: Verizon strike(John Levine)
Re: Verizon strike(David Scheidt)
Re: Verizon strike(Free Lunch)

====== 29 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime.  - Geoffrey Welsh


See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.


Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:30:22 -0500 From: "John F. Morse" <john@example.invalid> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.14.12.30.22.455745@example.invalid> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:34:43 +0000 danny burstein wrote: > We had that at a garage I worked in. The phone did, in fact, have a > Touch Tone keypad but, since the line was an actual coin line, you > couldn't make a phone call as the CO didn't give you dial tone until the > pay phone had a coin dropped into it. > > - In roughly 1980 the line was switched to "dial tone first", but > restricted to "911" and (probably) "operator". (this was part of the > whole nationwide transition for 911 service). > > But again, you couldn't make calls to other numbers. Trying to do so got > you a "please deposit ten cents and redial". You could call any "free" call number, such as your repair dispatcher, testboard, plant assignment and other company numbers. -- John When a person has -- whether they knew it or not -- already rejected the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie?
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:49:19 -0500 From: "John F. Morse" <john@example.invalid> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.14.12.49.19.149297@example.invalid> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 14:07:24 -0700 Lisa or Jeff wrote: > At an old-phone show today, someone had a sign tellings callers of a pay > phone to listen first before depositing money; this was to ensure the > line wasn't in use. > > Years ago, it was common for a small business, such as a luncheonette, > gas station, barbershop, etc. to have a pay phone with an extension > attached to it. The extension did not have a dial. In this way the pay > phone could serve both customers and the business. If the phone rang, > the business could answer it on the extension if desired. > > Would anyone know more about that arrangement? Is it still in use? (I > checked a lunchonette that had it and they got rid of their pay phone.) Coin class phones had two USOC codes: 1PC = one party Public Coin 1SP = one party Semi-Public There were no 2xx (two-party) coin lines, which would have, think about it, created all kinds of problems. The 1PC was a phone the telephone company owned, installed in a public place, and the phone company kept all the money it generated. Public meaning streets, airports, and any other place the phone company saw a chance for revenue and had permission from the owner to install the phone. The 1SP was the phone company's phone too (weren't they all?!), but it was installed in a semi-public place. Actually a private place that the public was permitted to visit, such as a store, barber shop, etc. The owner of the private property had to initiate an service order request for a 1SP line. In the 1960s-1970s the 1SP class carried with it a 41-cent per day guarantee. That was because the phone was not accessible 24/7 in most cases, and meant the proprietor had to "pay" 41 cents per day for the phone service. It would be credited from the total income the coin box took in during every collection cycle. So, that 1SP line and coin set cost the proprietor $12.30 per month, which was comparable to a 1FR (one party flat-rate residential) line (which he couldn't get inside a business), but cheaper than a 1FB (one party flat-rate business) line. It was a way a proprietor could afford a phone, and was a service to the public as well. Any non-dial, answer-only extension would cost an additional monthly fee. -- John When a person has -- whether they knew it or not -- already rejected the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie?
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:36:51 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul <pssawyer@comcast.net.INVALID> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <Xns9F418A85EF612Senex@88.198.244.100> "John F. Morse" <john@example.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2011.08.14.12.49.19.149297@example.invalid: > Coin class phones had two USOC codes: > > 1PC = one party Public Coin > > 1SP = one party Semi-Public > > There were no 2xx (two-party) coin lines, which would have, think > about it, created all kinds of problems. > > The 1PC was a phone the telephone company owned, installed in a > public place, and the phone company kept all the money it > generated. > > Public meaning streets, airports, and any other place the phone > company saw a chance for revenue and had permission from the owner > to install the phone. > > The 1SP was the phone company's phone too (weren't they all?!), > but it was installed in a semi-public place. Actually a private > place that the public was permitted to visit, such as a store, > barber shop, etc. The owner of the private property had to > initiate an service order request for a 1SP line. > > In the 1960s-1970s the 1SP class carried with it a 41-cent per day > guarantee. That was because the phone was not accessible 24/7 in > most cases, and meant the proprietor had to "pay" 41 cents per day > for the phone service. It would be credited from the total income > the coin box took in during every collection cycle. > > So, that 1SP line and coin set cost the proprietor $12.30 per > month, which was comparable to a 1FR (one party flat-rate > residential) line (which he couldn't get inside a business), but > cheaper than a 1FB (one party flat-rate business) line. It seems to me that the university where I worked had two classes of coin phones on university property, but someone else managed them so I don't know the USOCs. I expect the NHPUC made the rules described below. If the phone was in a high usage area, such as a main lobby, the phone was installed and maintained by the LEC at no charge to the U, and the U was paid a commission on the revenue for that phone. We called these "public." If we wanted a pay phone somewhere, and that location was deemed not enough usage by the LEC, we paid a monthly fee about the same as a private business line, and it was classified "semi-public." The U was NOT paid a commission on these. I always thought this was somewhat backwards. The LEC kept track of usage on all the pay phones, and sometimes the classification would be changed. In later years, most of the semi-public pay phones were changed out to extensions on our own PBX, and many of the public phones disappeared. -- Paul
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:10:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones? Message-ID: <d38c2561-713c-4c27-b209-45d716a2616c@t6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> On Aug 14, 1:36pm, Paul <pssaw...@comcast.net.INVALID> wrote: > If the phone was in a high usage area, such as a main lobby, the > phone was installed and maintained by the LEC at no charge to the U, > and the U was paid a commission on the revenue for that phone. We > called these "public." Presumably, if a pay phone today could still earn lots of money, the owner of the property where the phone was situated could still get a commission. But with widespread cell phones and cheap landline service, such a situation would be extremely rare today. Maybe the lobby of a highway rest stop, which once would have a battery of pay phones, now has one. > If we wanted a pay phone somewhere, and that location was deemed not > enough usage by the LEC, we paid a monthly fee about the same as a > private business line, and it was classified "semi-public." The U > was NOT paid a commission on these. I always thought this was > somewhat backwards. Where pay phones still exist they are presumably the arrangement described above. One application is the platform of railway stations, where the carrier pays the phone company for the phone to be there. The phone's main purpose is to serve as an emergency (911) phone for passengers in case of trouble. It's cheaper to do it this way than have a dedicated lift-for-service phone. Further, a few passengers still do use the phones to make calls. > In later years, most of the semi-public pay phones were changed out > to extensions on our own PBX, and many of the public phones > disappeared. Years ago businesses were very fussy about employees and guests making personal calls on business phones and pay phones were provided as described above for that reason. But today phone service is so cheap it doesn't matter (a 7 cent local call fee was significant in 1965, not so today). Indeed, many businesses (like a law firm) offer a free phone for guests to use in their waiting rooms. When I recently visited my old college, I noticed the pay phones were gone, but college PBX extensions (plain 2554 set) were liberally placed throughout all the hallways and outdoor walkways, for use as emergency phones. (I wondered if that was perhaps overkill, perhaps a reaction of fear. Or, perhaps security needs had changed to require that kind of coverage.)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:54:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon strike Message-ID: <4893fd4b-5be2-4a53-9d01-7cd1bcaab489@p5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> On Aug 11, 5:13pm, Steve Stone <spfl...@citlink.net> wrote: > The company I work for is telling employees who work from home offices > that they should keep their total cost for a work voice telephone line > under $40 per month. The preferred solution is a company VoIP system > which does not require POTS. This supports the thought that Verizon > and other wireline telcos might be losing business to alternate lower > cost providers. How would the workers get a VOIP line? I thought one had to have either DSL (on top of a landline), or, digital cable on top of cable TV service. Can one get a data line _by itself_ without anything else attached to it--and one that would be cheaper than a landline?
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:44:26 -0500 From: GlowingBlueMist <glowingbluemist@truely.invalid> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon strike Message-ID: <4e48259d$0$12950$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com> On 8/14/2011 11:54 AM, Lisa or Jeff wrote: > On Aug 11, 5:13 pm, Steve Stone<spfl...@citlink.net> wrote: > >> The company I work for is telling employees who work from home offices >> that they should keep their total cost for a work voice telephone line >> under $40 per month. The preferred solution is a company VoIP system >> which does not require POTS. This supports the thought that Verizon >> and other wireline telcos might be losing business to alternate lower >> cost providers. > > How would the workers get a VOIP line? I thought one had to have > either DSL (on top of a landline), or, digital cable on top of cable > TV service. > > Can one get a data line _by itself_ without anything else attached to > it--and one that would be cheaper than a landline? > You can get a DSL line with out having an actual working phone number but not all internet providers allow you to order this type. In my area you can order what is known as a dry loop DSL connection. They do charge extra for no phone number being bundled with the DSL but it is still cheaper than a phone number plus a DSL feed. As for home phone service I use a NetTalk phone adapter. I have used others like Vonage and Skype. I got rid of Vonage as it required a PC be powered on all the time to have continuous phone service, same as Skype (no adapter, just software). With the NetTalk adapter you can plug it directly into a router or your PC allowing you much more flexibility. Here is a link that will take you to a screen for ATT's offering. http://www.att.com/dsl/ or another third party link showing offerings for them and others. http://www.connectmyhighspeed.com/dryloop/ I have had mine for a few years from what was Qwest, now CenturyLink.
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:12:51 -0400 From: Steve Stone <spfleck@citlink.net> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon strike Message-ID: <FLX1q.107545$_I7.21503@newsfe08.iad> On 8/14/2011 12:54 PM, Lisa or Jeff wrote: > How would the workers get a VOIP line? I thought one had to have > either DSL (on top of a landline), or, digital cable on top of cable > TV service. Yes, and not the employers problem since they don't reimburse for home office Internet connectivity. > > Can one get a data line _by itself_ without anything else attached to > it--and one that would be cheaper than a landline? > I don't know. Steve
Date: 14 Aug 2011 20:07:32 -0000 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon strike Message-ID: <20110814200732.44140.qmail@joyce.lan> >How would the workers get a VOIP line? I thought one had to have >either DSL (on top of a landline), or, digital cable on top of cable >TV service. > >Can one get a data line _by itself_ without anything else attached to >it--and one that would be cheaper than a landline? Cable companies will sell you just Internet, although they would rather sell you a package with TV and phone and someone's cell phone service. In the past ILECs were supposed to sell bare DSL but I gather that since the FCC no longer enforces the rules, you can order it but you can't get it, or if you can, it's more expensive than voice+DSL. R's, John ***** Moderator's Note ***** Do you mean that the rules are no longer in effect, that the FCC is no longer responsible for enforcing the rules, or that the FCC chooses not to? Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:22:32 +0000 (UTC) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon strike Message-ID: <j2979o$kv9$1@reader1.panix.com> Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: :On Aug 11, 5:13 pm, Steve Stone <spfl...@citlink.net> wrote: :> The company I work for is telling employees who work from home offices :> that they should keep their total cost for a work voice telephone line :> under $40 per month.  The preferred solution is a company VoIP system :> which does not require POTS.  This supports the thought that Verizon :> and other wireline telcos might be losing business to alternate lower :> cost providers. :How would the workers get a VOIP line? I thought one had to have :either DSL (on top of a landline), or, digital cable on top of cable :TV service. :Can one get a data line _by itself_ without anything else attached to :it--and one that would be cheaper than a landline? Sure, most places. In Chicago, T, Comcast, and RCN will, if they serve your building, be happy to sell you just data. (So will a number of other peple who serve smaller areas of the city.) No, it won't be cheaper than a basic land line phone. But note that anyone working from home has to have a data connection these days, so the marginal cost of getting a connection that supports VOIP is pretty small (I'd want a dedicated IP telephone, though, and not an analog through a converter.). -- sig 23 ***** Moderator's Note ***** If I wanted to use my DSL line for phone service, what brand(s) of phone could I get that I could plug in to an Ethernet port? What do the phones cost, and how do I get service for them? Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:45:15 -0500 From: Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: Verizon strike Message-ID: <8ucg47l44gb1fvvi1roal2g2kt5cfslm75@4ax.com> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:54:49 -0700 (PDT), Lisa or Jeff <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: >On Aug 11, 5:13pm, Steve Stone <spfl...@citlink.net> wrote: > >> The company I work for is telling employees who work from home offices >> that they should keep their total cost for a work voice telephone line >> under $40 per month. The preferred solution is a company VoIP system >> which does not require POTS. This supports the thought that Verizon >> and other wireline telcos might be losing business to alternate lower >> cost providers. > >How would the workers get a VOIP line? I thought one had to have >either DSL (on top of a landline), or, digital cable on top of cable >TV service. > >Can one get a data line _by itself_ without anything else attached to >it--and one that would be cheaper than a landline? Charter certainly offers internet-only. ***** Moderator's Note ***** Love the domain name! Bill Horne Moderator
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information:Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information: http://telecom-digest.org


Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.

End of The Telecom Digest (10 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues